Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fayiz Abdallah was ordered removed by an immigration judge on October 2, 2024. After remaining in administrative custody for more than six months following the final removal order, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Abdallah argued that his continued detention exceeded the statutory and constitutional limits recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis. The government represented that travel documents had been forwarded to the Jordanian Consulate and that Abdallah would be removed to Jordan once those documents were issued. Abdallah did not challenge that representation or the government’s assertion that removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It explained that after six months of post-removal-order detention, a detainee must provide good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future before the government bears a rebuttal burden under Zadvydas.
Because the record indicated that Abdallah would be removed once final travel documents were issued, the court held that he had not met his threshold burden. His continued detention therefore did not violate the statutory or constitutional limitations recognized in Zadvydas, and he was not entitled to relief under § 2241. The court also denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Detention lasting more than six months does not by itself require release under Zadvydas.
- A detainee must first show good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Unchallenged evidence that travel documents are being processed and removal will follow their issuance can defeat that threshold showing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the six-month period identified in Zadvydas is a presumptive boundary, not an automatic detention deadline. Post-removal-order detainees seeking habeas relief must present evidence casting doubt on the realistic prospect of removal.
For immigration practitioners, the ruling highlights the importance of addressing the government’s evidence about travel-document processing and the anticipated timing and feasibility of removal.